2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was the Defendant’s execution of the above construction work by lending the name of the Defendant Company D as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

A. The instant case confirmed the money received from the Defendant to the construction enterprise account in the course of investigating the crime that many construction enterprises, including D, lent a construction license to the owner of the building, and commenced the investigation into the Defendant.

B. However, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant paid money to the said construction company in the course of investigation, the Defendant, as a certified architect, made a statement to the effect that, at the time, the Defendant only handled the case upon the request of the owner E to conduct the administrative affairs by proxy, and that he would be able to borrow a license ( Nevertheless, the investigative agency appears to have closed the investigation as the Defendant led to the confession of the Defendant and sent

However, E, the main owner of the new building of this case, was present as a witness in the trial process, and stated to the effect that “A person, other than the defendant, given a license or a license to a construction company, and the defendant paid money to the construction company at his own request without knowing it.” Unlike this case, E is from D in relation to the said new building construction.